Many of the significant developments
in quality assurance in the forensic science community have originated
in the United States. This presentation gives a brief historical
account of these, followed by a more detailed account of current
initiatives.

The major federal agencies
active in forensic sciencethe Federal Bureau of Investigation,
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, and the Drug Enforcement
Agencyhave contributed much through their research and
standards. A particularly significant contribution was the establishment
through FBI sponsorship of the Technical Working Group on DNA
Analysis Methods (TWGDAM), which has been followed by many other
working groups.

ASCLD in turn established
the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory
Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB), which for almost 15 years provided
the only forensic science laboratory accreditation program, and
today it is the only such program with international participation.
ASCLD also established the National Forensic Science Technology
Center with a mission to assist laboratories to achieve the highest
quality of operations.

Today, there are major quality
initiatives in place. The ASCLD/LAB program is undergoing review
to become fully ISO
Guide 25 (now ISO Standard 17025) compliant. The review also
covers making ASCLD/LAB itself ISO Guide 58 compliant.

The highly visible and sensitive
area of DNA analysis is covered by federal guidelines developed
by the DNA Advisory Board as a set of demanding quality assurance
standards. The TWGDAM concept has evolved into a number of advisory
groups, most of which are now titled Scientific Working Groups.

The community also contributed
much through the establishment of a range of certification boards,
covering, for example, toxicology, questioned documents, and,
most recently, criminalistics.

The DNA Advisory Board (DAB)
Quality Assurance Standards, as well as the forensic DNA guidelines
established by the Technical Working Group for DNA Analysis Methods
(TWGDAM), require that a laboratory conducting forensic DNA analysis
be audited at least once a year. In addition, the DAB Standard
15.2 requires that a second agency shall participate in the annual
audit once every two years. In order to comply with the TWGDAM
guidelines, several forensic laboratories joined together in
1994 to organize a DNA forensic audit group to perform the required
yearly audits. This organization formed to help reduce auditing
costs by sharing in the audit expenses and also to organize a
team of experienced forensic experts knowledgeable in the area
of forensic DNA analysis and TWGDAM guidelines. It is advantageous
to have the audit inspection conducted by not only individuals
familiar with DNA analysis, good laboratory practices, and standard
quality assurance practices but also with detailed knowledge
of forensic laboratory procedures.

The forensic arena has additional
requirements beyond good laboratory practices. Chain-of-custody
procedures, rules of criminal procedures, and evidence handling
procedures are just a few of the additional areas that need to
be addressed during a forensic laboratory audit. The Potomac
Region Audit Group consists of nine forensic DNA laboratories.
A memorandum of understanding was signed between the participating
laboratories, and an audit document was designed on the basis
of the 1995 TWGDAM Guidelines for a Quality Assurance Program.
Members of the audit group were either from an ASCLD accredited
laboratory or members of TWGDAM that had experience with laboratory
assurance procedures.

To give credibility to the
audit process, the MidAtlantic Association of Forensic Scientists
(MAAFS) formed the Forensic DNA Auditor Training Certification
Committee (FDATCC) in 1997. The purpose of the committee is to
oversee the training of forensic DNA auditors, review credentials,
and assure auditors meet necessary experience and training requirements
before certifying them as an auditor. All members of the Potomac
Region Audit Group have become certified auditors. The audit
group meets annually to update the quality assurance requirements,
to refine the audit document according to DAB/TWGDAM revisions,
and to address audit issues.

This presentation describes,
in detail, the FDATCC committee's responsibilities, the training
program, the memorandum of understanding developed between the
member of the Potomac Region Audit Group, the audit document
used by all of the auditors, and the training and certification
program record documenting the auditor's credentials. A description
of the audit process, the scheduling of the laboratory audits,
recent audit issues, and the revised DAB formal audit document
is also presented.

Quality Control and Credibility: The Practical
Resolution
Frank TuerkheimerUniversity of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin

The United States Supreme
Court has become increasingly involved in questions of expert
evidence. Until its decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), in which the Court provided guidance
to lower courts for determining whether a particular scientific
method was admissible, the leading case in the United States
on expert evidence was a 1923 case, Frye v. United States,
293 Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), a lower court decision. The Supreme
Court recently revisited the area of expert evidence in Kumho
Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 2189 (1999)
in which the concept of scientific proof was held to apply to
conclusions derived from experience. Such interest in the issue
of scientific proof by the Court is a barometer of the extent
to which there is increasing reliance on such evidence.

Whether a technique is sufficiently
reliable to permit its use is, under these cases, a question
for the trial court to determine. Once a technique satisfies
the Daubert-Kumho standard for admissibility, the question
of quality control arises. How are quality control issues to
be handled? This question was addressed in a leading DNA case,
United States v. Shea, 957 F. Supp 331 (D.H. H. 1997).
After discussing the admissibility of DNA evidence as a general
matter, the court turned to defense objections based on alleged
deficiencies in handling and quality control procedures. Citing
other decisions, some in other areas of evidence, the court stated:

"I need not address
the merits of Shea's arguments. Instead, I join the many courts
that have addressed similar issues by concluding that because
such arguments concern the way in which a method is applied in
a particular case, rather than the validity of the method, they
affect the weight that should be given the evidence, rather than
its admissibility." (957 F. Supp. st 340-41)

Unless the case involves
such defective quality control procedures that a court would
not permit a jury to consider the evidencea rare casequestions
of quality control are for the jury to resolve. Their resolution
then is intimately tied to the credibility of the expert or experts
presenting the evidence.

Obviously, the best method
to avoid problems in this area is to avoid quality control problems
in the first place. Assuming, however, that there are such issues
and, indeed, that there may be disputed evidence on quality control,
what general observations can be made on the credibility of forensic
witnesses that might have an impact on how their credibility
and hence quality control issues are resolved? There are three:

Use all methods available
as demonstrative evidence.
A common lament of trial judges about trial lawyers is the under-utilization
of demonstrative proof. No area is as amenable to such proof
as explanations for scientific conclusions. If a case is important
enough to tax the resources implicit in the use of complex scientific
proof, it is important enough to demonstrate the reasoning process
behind such proof to the jury as effectively as possible.

Consider the personality
factor. Especially
in cases where there is a conflict in expert proof, at least
some jurors may be lost and will grope for a method of resolving
the dispute. In such a case, there is certainly a good chance
such a juror will resolve credibility issues in favor of the
more likable expert. This may be because many experts, from time
to time, demonstrate a certain imperiousness and condescension
to the participants at the trial. Although the experts' views
may be justified in many cases, imperiousness and condescension
are not likable traits and if they come across clearly, may by
themselves be a reason an otherwise unsure juror will resolve
a credibility issue against the expert showing such traits.

Keep role in mind. An expert is on the witness stand
to present facts, not to argue a case. Occasionally experts cross
the line from witness to advocate. This is especially likely
during cross-examination and perhaps at the end of cross-examination,
when the expert may be mentally tired and the discipline that
keeps the expert in the proper role begins to break down. Although
occasionally effective, such a metamorphosis in role is more
often damaging to the expert's credibility because the jury has
a sharp sense of the part each of the participants in the trial
process plays. Expert conduct inconsistent with that sense of
role may translate into a loss of credibility.

The law leaves quality control
issues to the jury. Although no trial technique can alter given
facts, where quality control issues involve disputed facts, they
become questions of credibility. Credibility is not a fixed concept
unaffected by trial dynamics. On the contrary, credibility issues
are inevitably intertwined with many variables, three of which
have been discussed and all of which are under the control of
the witness and the party calling the witness.

There is a growing need to
facilitate acceptance of test data on a worldwide basis under
provisions of international and regional treaties such as the
World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and
a variety of directives of the European Union. But today's emphasis
on quality has heightened awareness of the importance of good
data and competent testing laboratories. Laboratory accreditation
has been identified as a cost-effective means to promote the
acceptance of test data while assuring the quality of data. This
has been the ultimate goal of the International
Laboratory Accreditation Co-operation (ILAC) and regional
multilateral agreement bodies such as the European Cooperation
for Accreditation (EA), the Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation, and the Inter-American Accreditation Cooperation.

Ways that existing accreditation
bodies can cooperate, through multilateral mutual recognition
arrangements (MRAs), create in effect one international system,
thus paving the way for worldwide acceptance of test data. The
EA approach is to create a forum for arriving at a MRA among
various accreditation systems. This means that appointed representatives
from the laboratory accreditation systems who are members of
EA perform an assessment of an applicant laboratory accreditation
system on behalf of all the systems in the agreement. If the
basic requirements are met, then the accreditation is recognized
by all systems party to the agreement. This model is being used
as a basis for similar MRAs in other regions of the world, most
recently, in the Pacific Rim countries. Efforts are also being
made in the Americas to forge an MRA among accrediting bodies
under the auspices of ILAC.

ILAC has embarked on a plan
to develop one MRA that would pull together the regional MRA
efforts and provide a loose umbrella over the whole process.

Criteria for Selecting a High Quality Scientist
for the Crime Laboratory
B. W. Vander KolkIllinois State Police
Springfield, Illinois

The quality assurance program
for a forensic science laboratory begins prior to the actual
hiring of an employee. The ability to select quality forensic
scientists can only enhance the laboratory's capability and image.
The Illinois State Police uses a seven-step process to hire forensic
scientists:

Recruitment. A good recruitment program is a
continuous process in which laboratory management maintains an
ongoing relationship with colleges and universities. The Illinois
State Police also has full-time recruiters for sworn candidates
who also recruit for code when applicable. The use of brochures
and posters is encouraged and adds a degree of professionalism
to the recruitment process.

Educational Requirements. All individuals applying must have
at least a bachelor's degree in a natural or forensic science.
Additionally, they must have a minimum of 20 semester hours of
chemistry courses and 60 semester hours of science for any chemical
disciplines. If the applicant is interested in forensic biology/DNA,
they must also have course work in at least two of the following:
biochemistry, cell biology/molecular biology, and genetics. If
they meet these requirements, they are eligible to proceed to
the next stage of the process, which is eligibility determination.

Eligibility Determination. Applicants who meet the educational
requirements can choose from one to three of the following options:

A. Pattern Evidence

Latent Prints

Firearms/Toolmarks

Questioned Documents

Photography/Imaging

B. Chemistry

Drug Chemistry

Trace Chemistry

Toxicology

Microscopy

C. Biochemistry

Forensic Biology

DNA

Once options have been selected,
applicants will be invited to take a written examination for
those options. The written examination is managed by the State
Central Management Services Department. They also grade the examinations
and determine if an individual qualifies for grades of A, B,
C, or Fail. The written examination or examinations cover the
following subject areas:

All Options

Written communication skills

Reading comprehension skills

Analytical problem-solving
skills

Basic knowledge of laboratory
science

Option A and B: Pattern recognition skills

Option A: Mechanical aptitude

Option B: Knowledge of basic chemistry

Option C: Knowledge of basic biology

Interview Process. The following seven interview criteria
areas have been selected by the Illinois State Police:

Communications

Personal Projection

Experience and Training

Analytical Aptitude

Judgment

Interpersonal Relations

Adaptability

Each of the seven criteria
are assigned a specific weight with the total for the seven areas
being 100 percent. Questions are designed to address at least
two of the criteria areas. In many cases a question can be used
to measure several areas. Additionally, a scoring scale was developed
to rate individuals. These are

Did not meet this criteria:
12

Partially met this criteria:
35

Fully met this criteria:
68

Exceeded this criteria:
910

The Illinois State Police
has further defined the scoring scale for each criteria. Scoring
is accomplished by using a preprinted form that includes the
scoring scale definitions, with room for writing personal observations.

An interview team captain
is selected to join two other interviewers. At times it may be
necessary to have more than one team. If this is done, training
should be accomplished to ensure consistency of applicant scores.
One way to accomplish this is by mock interviews. If multiple
teams are used, team numerical scoring should be compared and
discussed to see if consistency is being obtained.

Additionally, the Illinois
State Police requires that if the scoring on a criteria area
deviates between interviewers by more than two points, a discussion
must occur and be reconciled within two points. This ensures
open discussion on potential issues that one interviewer may
have seen that another did not. A software program has been developed
that collects the scores from all three interviewers, factors
in the criteria weight, and gives a single numerical score for
the applicant. A current roster of applicants, listed from highest
to lowest score, is provided to each interviewer.

Finally, each applicant is
asked a question such as: "Is there anything in your background
that would be revealed by a polygraph test or extensive background
investigation that we should know about or that will affect your
employment with a law enforcement agency?" This provides
an applicant with an opportunity to be truthful about their background
prior to discovering an issue by other means.

Polygraph. The agency determines areas of interest
and potential thresholds, and then questions are asked accordingly
by a polygraph examiner.

Drug Testing. All potential employees are required
to give a urine sample for drug testing. Notification is given
24 hours in advance of the test. At that time they are told where
and when to report. Drug testing and collection is done by contract
laboratories, not by Illinois State Police laboratories.

Background Investigation. An extensive background investigation
is conducted by the Illinois State Police investigators.